9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscate the goods or order of the Adjudicating Authority for confiscation. Admittedly in the present case Shri Suraj Prakash has dealt with the goods in a manner which has made the goods liable to confiscation - In a situation where the clandestinely removed goods are no longer available, there can be no proposal to confiscate the same or no order confiscating the same. It does not mean that the person, who is otherwise liable to penalty, would escape the same on the sole ground that he has been successful in the past to clandestinely remove the goods without any interception by the Revenue Authorities. Penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/2665/2008-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO.71568/2018 - Dated:- 19-7-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applicable inasmuch as there was neither a proposal in Show Cause Notice to confiscate the goods nor there is any order of confiscation. In such a scenario he submits Rule 26 cannot be invoked. Learned Advocate also submits the appellant has resigned from directorship of the company in the year 2008. However, he fairly agrees that during the period of alleged clandestine activity of the company, he was the Director. 4. Learned D.R. appearing for the Revenue submits that admittedly the appellant was director during the relevant time and as such the fact of his resignation subsequently in the year 2008 will have no bearing on the penalty issue. Further, arguing he submits that during the course of investigation the appellant has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directorship in the year 2008. In our views resignation of the director during the period subsequent to the period during which the clandestine activity took place has no bearing on the merits of his case. Further, on going through the impugned order we note that the Adjudicating Authority has observed that the manufacturing activity of the company were very well under the control of its director Shri Suraj Prakash who has admitted in his statement that he was responsible for day to day working of the factory and the other two directors were sleeping directors. He has also given the details of receipt of non duty paid M.S. Ingot and conversion of the same into final product which were being cleared by him without payment of duty. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Notice to confiscate the goods or order of the Adjudicating Authority for confiscation. The only ingredient is knowledge/reasonable believe on the part of the person, as regards the liability of the goods, with which he is dealing, to confiscation. Admittedly in the present case Shri Suraj Prakash has dealt with the goods in a manner which has made the goods liable to confiscation. There is no challenge to the evidence discussed by the Adjudicating Authority as regards his involvement in the clandestine removal of the goods form the factory premises, which establishes that he was actually dealing with the goods in a clandestine manner. Merely because the goods have not been seized during the period of their clandestine clearance and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
